|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 12:31:31 PM | long ages of struggle and violent death. Why would loving God allow this?
Ummm... wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "Why DOES loving God allow this?"
Evolution is about change and we are not the ones to judge if it is better or worse.
Plants absorb electromagnetic energy (of which heat is a component) and use it to create sugar. Isn't that reversing entropy? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 12:50:53 PM | | For a while yes. But plants die and so does everyone else. They do not reverse entropy. Plants were designed this way. besides, usefull energy will decrease and "heat death" will happen sooner or later. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 12:52:12 PM | | o yes, and one more thing. we are not to judge the evolution. But who are we to judge God? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 1:04:22 PM | There is inherent value of genetic diversity. Rare alleles and rare combinations of alleles that confer no present advantage may be very well suited to a future environmental condition. Conversely, as a species (or subspecies...) becomes genetically similar, the threat that a disease could wipe out the species is greater.
Take corn, for example. Corn has been selectively crossed into thousands of varieties over thousands of years. Now, Monsanto is pushing genetic engineered corn (engineered in a way that could never happen in nature) that is essentially all the same genetically. With any of those other thousands of corn varieties, if a disease struck a crop variety, there would be some plants in the variety that have rare alleles that confer resistance to that disease. Those plants could be seed for future crops (though, lots of genetic diversity would still be lost.) If a disease hits genetic engineered corn, there is not the within-species diversity. That corn would be gone. A huge problem with this, in addition to the amount of this corn being grown, is that this corn is crossing with natural varieties. Monsanto cannot make ‘better’ corn than God/Nature. If God/Nature had meant for corn to be genetically alike, God/Nature would have created corn that way. Genetic engineered corn is not the way corn is meant to be and is dangerous, as well. Corn is meant to be able to 'evolve' to a variety of conditions (there are different varieties that grow better in different environmental conditions, because of genetic diversity.)
http://www.navdanya.org/articles/ge_trials.htm
The Irish potato famine is an example of the danger of reliance on one variety of a crop (and a single genetic engineered variety is even more hazardous.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_potato_famine | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 331 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 2:14:45 PM | Is there anything wrong with figuring out how God does his miracles?
The problems stem from the contradictions between religious and scientific explanations. Although, the Christian church seemed to recover from the shock that the earth orbits the sun, or that other solar systems exist, perhaps evolution will be similar. Happily scientists today are mainly subject to self-induced tortured by their research and not punitive torture for breaking step with various theological doctrines.
I’ve often thought science is pretty decent at researching:
What happens? & How does it happen?
Now the Why does it happen? (the big Whys, not little mechanistic Whys)…
*shrugs*… are just outside of the field of science.
rapid development of resistance to multiple antibiotics which again seems to have much higher incidences
I think what people weren’t expecting is that organisms, bacteria especially, could share genetic information horizontally, and not just pass it down through their descendants. Additionally, (from the readings you got me started on, which are rather cool!), at sub-lethal levels of antibiotics (people not taking their full dose) it seems there’s a gene amplification mechanism that increases the likelihood of mutation, and subsequently the rate of beneficial mutation.
"Quantum Evolution" by Johnjoe McFadden sounds like an interesting read. I’ll have to get a bit more grounding in quantum theory first. So mind-bending though… I must admit Bohr was right when he said “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.”
----------------
Darwin only partly understood the mechanism
Agreed, Darwin’s theory has changed a fair bit as new evidence is found. Although his statement here is a pretty good summary still:
"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection… As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form. " Darwin
Are you thinking about behavioural evolution Dharma? (re: other types of evolution)
HOW VERY BORING (for both God, and creation).
I don’t know why but the idea of a bored god makes me very, very nervous.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 3:43:26 PM | I don’t know why but the idea of a bored god makes me very, very nervous. Maybe He's the one who's prodding at our DNA!
McFadden goes fairly easy on Quantum theory, so it's quite readable, but I bet you have enough other things to read.
Now the Why does it happen Maybe we just can't grasp the notion that there doesn't have to be a why.
Much misunderstanding of Darwin and his theory arises from the interpretation of how genetics contributes to evolution. Darwin wasn't aware of genes and theories of inheritance were pretty controvertial at the time. He was somewhat ridiculed in his later life for postulating the existence of 'gemmules' which transmitted characteristics acquired during an individual's lifetime to the cells responsible for reproduction (somewhat Lamarckian again!). Gregor Mendel was a contemporary of Darwin's and is considered to be the father of genetics. He didn't publicize his work which hypothesized the unaltered passing of 'discrete factors' from one generation to the next, so Darwin never new of it. Mendel and his theory remained in obscurity until the early 20th century, many years after the deaths of both Darwin and Mendel. It was De Vries in his 1901 book, Mutation Theory, who first proposed that Darwin's evolution occurred by mutations of Mendelian 'genes'.
Interestingly, Darwin attributes major inspiration for his evolutionary theory to the ideas of theologian and economist Thomas Malthus. I guess what goes around comes around!
Here's another site that seems to have a lot of useful ideas and links to origins of life. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/darwin.htm | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 3:52:32 PM | Evolution is a theory. No one can prove 100% ANY theory. You and I were not there long long ago and we did not see how it was done . No one can confirm it in any experiment. Both Evolution and creation are the matter of faith . We just CHOOZE what to believe. Darwin himself wrote in his book "The origin of species by means of natural selection" on page 85 : "Suppose an eye with all its complexity blah blah... could have been made by the means of natural selection seems to me an absurd in the highest degree possible" (well I put it in my words with the exception of the word "absurd", it is in the original). Evolution has its problems as a theory. If it was not so we would not be here arguing about it  . People believe what they want to believe . Natural selection and mutation do not produce new species. They create variations within the species. For example there are different kind of dogs but they all are dogs (not cats or anything like that). And their babies always going to be dogs and not anything else. There are mutated wingless beetles but they are beetles nontheless. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 4:04:16 PM | Are you thinking about behavioural evolution Dharma?
I was thinking about lots, but especially evolutionary, behavioral, and ecopsychology—particularly altruism and cooperation as functioning to increase inclusive fitness. I think the role of competition overshadows the importance of cooperation in ‘fitness’ of animal species and individuals.
E.g., cognitive evolution in thought and emotional evolution (development of deeper compassion, love, empathy, etc.) that can occur in sentient individuals. I am also thinking about evolution in the idea of individual human self (well-being) as part of, connected to, the Earth (well-being), as well. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient]... all different than genetic evolution, though.
The link is excerpts from Anita Barrows' essay in (1995) Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind. T. Roszak, M. Gomes., A. Kanner. Sierra Club Books. (This is a great book, overall). Barrows talks about a process of maturation in individual people where spheres-of-compassion, or concept of ‘self,’ are widened. Thinking as if the Earth is God might be one way to think of that.
http://ecopsychology.athabascau.ca/0996/ecobarrows.html
“I live my life in widening circles.
That reach out across the world.”
–Rilke, The Book of Hours
Her essay has similarities to Chief Seattle’s ‘Letter to the People’
“This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”
http://www.barefootsworld.net/seattle.html | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 4:12:53 PM | This is just your oppinion. Go ahead, believe what you want to believe
Many scientists would disagree with you | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 4:34:20 PM | There are a lot of people would disagree with you on the altruism issue, Dharma. There's a lot of notions to support altruism if you Google it and evolution. Isn't environmentalism a form of altruism? - doing a little extra to lessen the impact of your existence on the planet?
As for mankind, we all seem biased towards the assumption that humankind is the ultimate creation. Maybe the dinosaurs thought that too. Are we really 'God's favorites' or just some arrogant organism that deludes itself into thinking so, whereas reality could be that humankind may not even be significant? Not that I recommend it, but I bet the universe would survive and even thrive off whatever humankind could throw at it. If you look at the earth alone, the notion of Gaia is that the occupants of the earth have made it what it is (and become extinct when they couldn't survive the outcome of their activities), not preserved existing conditions. It is widely accepted that the earth's atmosphere was once largely carbon dioxide with little oxygen. Lynne? Margolis suggests that photosynthesizing organisms depleted the carbon dioxide and "polluted" the atmosphere with oxygen. Other organisms then took advantage of that, eventually culminating in humans. Are we the end of the line? We have a choice of polluting ouselves out of existence and making way for something (better?) which thrives on our pollution, or taking better care of our environment so that we can survive comfortably. Does God really care which way we choose? Doesn't He win either way?
As much as I support environmentalism and the stewardship of our planet, I am under no illusion that it is for my own selfish notion. I would like humanity to survive. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 5:18:00 PM | I wrote this before, but seems relevant here--not only because this talks about the idea of GAIA, but also because I think it shows that scientists too (sometimes) can be 'fundamentalist.'
If GAIA is creator of everything, including deities, it seems to follow that Mother Earth--all creatures and the diversity of life on the planet--deserve a little more respect and protection. What do you think?
Gaea, Gaia, Grecian Primordial Being; Creator of Life; Supreme Being; Family and Tribes. "Earth." She is believed to have emerged from Chaos. A supreme power, she created everything -- the universe, deities, and humans; an "all-producing and all-nourishing" goddess.
From, GAIA: A New Look at Life on Earth, by JE Lovelock:
“Things have taken a strange turn in recent years; almost the full circle from Galileo’s famous struggle with the theological establishment. It is the scientific establishment that now forbids heresy. I had a faint hope that Gaia might be denounced from the pulpit; instead I was asked to deliver a sermon on Gaia at the Cathedral of St John the Divine in New York… The idea that the earth is alive has existed since ancient times. The name Gaia is a living entity that was used by the Greeks two thousand years ago.”
“The concept of Mother Earth or, as the Greeks called her long ago, Gaia, has been widely held throughout history and has been the basis of belief which still coexists with the great religions.”
“But if Gaia does exist, then we may find ourselves and all other living beings to be parts and partners of a vast being who in her entirety has the power to maintain our planet as a fit and comfortable habitat for life.”
Further reading:
GAIA: The Growth of an Idea by Lawrence Joseph
Theology for Earth Community: A Field Guide by Dieter Hessel
The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and God by Rupert Sheldrake
GAIA: A New Look at Life on Earth by JE Lovelock | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 6:06:18 PM | Wow, that's a lot of reading. Ouch.
I don't know for certain about creation, I'll give you, but the occurrence of evolution has been sufficiently proven to me for me to accept. I see the changes from one generation to the next, and I accept Darwin's "descent with modification" hypothesis as a viable explanation for these observations.
As far as the debate between "Evolutionism" and "Creationism" as philosophical stances, that's not even a scientific debate. From what I've seen, the religious proponents of Intelligen Design/Creationism have fabricated an entire philosophical movement counter to their own that "seeks to promote evolutionary thinking above religion." Which, in my opinion, is ridiculous. Scientists don't care about who claims credit for what they're observing; they're just trying to figure out: 1) what they're looking at and 2) how it works. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 6:08:17 PM | I’ve often thought science is pretty decent at researching:
What happens? & How does it happen?
Now the Why does it happen? (the big Whys, not little mechanistic Whys)…
*shrugs*… are just outside of the field of science.
This is a great point. I am a big proponent of science and the ability of science to understand the what and (some of) how. However, I also have some points about science that science as science should scientifically ‘think’ about ;)…
First would be the issue of bias. There is no observer-free observation. That observer doesn’t have direct access to reality, but one filtered through a mental structure (like Darwin observed, but clearly the ideas of his time influenced how he framed his observations.) So science is not ‘objective,’ but at least tries to be (more than many other ways of knowing.)
Science is often funded by what I perceive as ‘conflicts of interest.’ What gets studied and thought about is what gets paid for and what gets paid for… well… weapons… biomedical… etc. The role of cooperation and altruism in evolution don't really support some of that.
Lots more, but that is a start.
Well yes, too... if we were to suggest teaching creationism in schools is good... that better be comparative creation stories from around the world and through history--as a philosophy course (but, for various reasons, I'm not sure if I would say this--a comparative creationist story class--belongs at a below-college level). | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 340 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 7:35:51 PM | www.answersingenesis.org
Some pseudo-science at its finest, and not so finest there (in my humble opinion).
Things go from order to disorder and with time fall apart according to second law of thermodynamics. The theory of Evolution requires things to get better and better but we see the opposite. What we have now is conservation and extinction also shown by extinction of animal species. The first Law of thermodynamics shows that Evolution is not happening: the total amount of matter and energy cannot be created and cannot be destroyed.
The second law of thermodynamics, that disorder/entropy of a system tend to increase, only applies to closed systems. If the system is open and receiving energy (i.e. the earth receiving energy from the sun) then order can increase. On net the universe’s entropy is increasing, but local increases in order requiring energy input are obvious and observed daily. Changes in allele frequency in response to selective survival (just changes, not bettering… at least not in the long term) don’t violate the 2nd law.
The first law of thermodynamics, (modified by Einstein’s theory) is that the total amount of energy cannot be created or destroyed. Evolution doesn’t require the creation or destruction of matter or energy.
However, the laws of thermodynamics break down at the quantum level, which is part of the reason we got on that tangent.
Natural selection and mutation do not produce new species
Actually, there’s been dozens of recorded case of new species developing that are considered different species. We've known about these for over 30 years. They can breed with each other and produce viable offspring, but there are reproductive barriers preventing from breeding back to their original species.
A few examples:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.) (Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)
Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.
(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)
Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
but I bet you have enough other things to read
*laughing* don't even go there! These forums are my sanity break... oh dear... I'm pretty far gone, aren't I? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 7:54:04 PM | | Thanks, Dryad. You made all the points I was going to bring up. Especially regarding the laws of thermodynamics. I hadn't known about the studies in speciation. Interesting. Somebody remind me what drosophila is again, please. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 8:28:47 PM |
Natural selection and mutation do not produce new species.
That goes into the definition of 'species.' You sound like a clumper. For the purpose of ecology and protection of species (including human beings) the more diverse interpretation serves humanity most. Who can say what subtraction of what tiny insect population will not have HUGE and disasterous effects elsewhere, or later.... that quantum idea of butterfly effect comes to mind. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 8:43:15 PM |
Somebody remind me what drosophila is again, please.
It's the fly in the Creationist ointment. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 9:58:09 PM | I intend to be somewhat brief on this subject. I did not read beyond the origional posted thread.
1. Take the honeybee. The different parts rely on each other to exist. The honeybee had to be created instaneously or it could not have survived.
2. Consider the human eye. When did vision first happen? Find me ONE eye doctor that will tell you he believes in that miracle of vision via evolution.
3. A frog shoots out it's tongue an intercepts a fly traveling at supersonic speeds. It has been proven that it takes the marvels of computers and mathmatics for mankind to do the same thing with a missle. Yet, some believe that this ability just evolved in frogs.
4. Finally, it has recently been proven that ONE brain cell is so complex that it has been compared to all electrical activity at noon in New York city. All of the elevators, traffic lights, lights in buildings, computers, telephones, refrigerators, ranges, microwaves, cell phones......ALL electrical divices in operation.....does not equal the complexity of ONE brain cell in our bodies!!! Oh yes, we have billions of these cells.
5. Actually one more final thought. Why did a slivering mess of nothing decide to become something? When did the lungs form to move the air? When did the heart finally form and connect to the veins? When did the blood evolve and enter those veins and that heart? And How long did it lay around waiting for that perfectly timed spark of just the correct amount of electrical charge to start it pumping. Also, how did they exist untill maybe 100 trillion billion years later another spontaneous heart system evolved?
6. There are plenty of scientist that believe in instantaneous creation and have much more proof than evolutionist! The universe and humanity has an order that MUST be guided by God.
7. One more "one more final thought"! What guided this hap-hazzard evolution to develope into male and female? What would have been the need? How many trillion billion million years did it take for male and female sex organs to develope? If people use common sense, human beings COULD NOT HAVE DEVELOPED over any number of years. I am sure you have heard of the story of a monkey being placed in a watch shop and creating a Rolex! It can never happen?
8. Thanks for your time! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 10:06:20 PM |
1. Take the honeybee. The different parts rely on each other to exist. The honeybee had to be created instaneously or it could not have survived.
Prove it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 10:08:25 PM |
I am sure you have heard of the story of a monkey being placed in a watch shop and creating a Rolex! It can never happen?
I hadn't heard that one. Have you ever heard that you can take a thousand Creationists, sit them at typewriters, and let them type for a million years and they still won't type anything that's true. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 10:09:39 PM | | I was going to talk more about evolution, but first, I thought I'd tell a funny story, instead. A few hours ago my small (4 1/2 yr old) child and I were playing outside. My child jumped onto the lawn and said 'dinosaurs were right here.' Then... went into some fantasy about the dinosaur museum in Africa... and I said what happened to those dinosaurs? My kid said a big rock hit (I've never said anything about this idea, but might have heard that somewhere.) I said, "and then people came?" "Not exactly," the reply. "The people killed them when they came on that big rock." WEIRD. :) | |
|
dud
|
Joined: 9/9/2005
Msg: 349 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2005 11:04:22 PM | im wondering... if god made humans in his image, was his image the way humans used to look, the way we look now, or the way we will look at some future time?
and considering how different people look anyway, it doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 9/27/2005 12:23:32 AM | Cute kid, Dharma and already doing his/her? own research. You're gonna have a handful with that one pretty soon! Don't beat up on 'em too hard if they disagree with you ..... From the mouths of babes ....... ( and I don't mean the ones in bikinis!!!)
As for Gaia, the one I was thinking of was the notion of the earth as guiding her own destiny.
It's amazing how many creationists use the eye to ridicule evolution, Darwin even used it as an example of evolution in an essay entitled 'Organs of extreme complication and perfection'. Far from having gaps in the evolutionary progression, every stage in the evolution of the eye seems to be represented in living organisms, from light sensing organelles in bacteria to light sensitive regions in jellyfish and worms to directionally sensitive pits in clams, to pinhole focussing in molluscs, to lenses in insects and then to the mammalian pupil.
Dryad, if you want further mind boggling physics, try
http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/index.html
This one, I really couldn't fathom!
http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/physics/quantum.html
and a good source of further reading
http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/string.html | |
|
|
| Page 14 of 156
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 